Do illegal immigrants deserve a 'pathway to citizenship'?

July 11, 2013

U.S. House Republicans prefer incremental changes in immigration laws, rejecting the Senate's comprehensive approach. Dividing the GOP is whether to provide a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants living in the United States. Reporter Colby Itkowitz asked two local lawmakers.

MAYBE: U.S. Rep. Charlie Dent

Q: The House Republicans met Wednesday to discuss a way forward for immigration. How did it go?

A: I thought it went reasonably well. It's clear the House will take up an immigration bill, but not the Senate bill. It will deal with border security and enforcement. It will deal with worker shortages, high- and low-skilled. There is also a sense that you have to deal sensibly with the 11 million undocumented immigrants. Children will be given different consideration than adults. You're going to see this done through a series of bills, and I agree with that strategy.

Q: Why do the House Republicans believe the Senate bill is a non-starter?

A: The Senate bill on their border security piece, I commend their intent, but they [need] much firmer metrics of how this security money is going to be spent. … There is also concern that it may not stem the flow of people entering illegally. If we don't allow for enough lawful immigration, it will simply encourage more unlawful. Some of the caps on the work programs [which allow immigrants into the country on work visas] may not be quite right.

Q: Should the bill have a "pathway to citizenship" for the people living here illegally?

A: I'm open to some kind of track to an earned resident status, and for children that would be eventually citizenship. We have to treat these children who came here, at no fault of their own, differently than visa overstays or those who came here illegally. I'm not saying the [Senate bill] per se, but I've met some of [the children], I know some of them in my community and they're American kids for all practical purposes and we have to figure out a way to deal with them in a fair and thoughtful manner.

Q: Many in your caucus reject any pathway to citizenship. Democrats say they won't vote for a bill without it. Do you think it's possible to find a middle ground on this?

A: I've said there should be a track to earned legal status. I'm quite aware that many here unlawfully want to come out of the shadows, not worry about traveling or being deported. There's some room for compromise. Some of the 11 million will never be citizens — they've committed a crime and they should be deported. I have to look at the Senate bill a little closer and I want to see what the House's Gang of Eight [a bipartisan group working on its own draft immigration proposal] comes up with. … That might help us build some bipartisan consensus.

Q: Do you worry about the politics of not passing immigration, that Republicans need this to gain some of the Hispanic vote in future elections?

A: Clearly there are political implications. I think some members of our party have not always used very good rhetoric in talking about these issues, some [of it] inflammatory and nativist, which has been unhelpful. But I've talked to folks who want us to deal with this in a fair manner. If nothing occurs, that probably is not the desirable outcome. There is some concern that the [Obama] administration is happy not to have it passed, that they like the [political] issue more than getting results.

NO: U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta

Q: The House Republicans met to discuss moving forward on immigration this week. Did you speak?

A: I did get up and speak. I thought it was good to have the meeting. The overriding consensus that I took away was that people want to do border security first and that members feel like we need to do something about illegal immigration. I won a district that was 2-to-1 Democrat and no one has taken a harder line on illegal immigration than I have. I stood out there alone, and my city [Hazleton] is 49 percent Hispanic and I won with 90 percent of the vote. Illegal immigration is not the most important issue in the lives of Latinos in America. And that is how I have been able to overcome this perception that you can't take a stance on illegal immigration and still have Latino support. Hispanics and legal immigrants came to America for a better opportunity, a better job, a better education. That's what is important to them. ... I wanted to make that point.

A: The Senate bill falls short because it is politically motivated. It's not focused on border security but a pathway to citizenship. It's a promise of border security. We'll secure [the border], but we have to have this pathway to citizenship. The second part will make the problem worse. Now you invite them to come to the United States and come illegally because you can get this temporary permanent status and you'll be rewarded with a pathway to citizenship.